03.20.2018 CDB Agenda Packet
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday / March 20, 2018 / 6:00 PM
Commission Chambers / 800 Seminole Road
1. Call to Order and Roll Call.
2. Approval of Minutes.
A. Minutes of the February 20, 2018 regular meeting of the Community Development Board.
3. Old Business.
A. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair
4. New Business.
A. ZVAR18‐0005 PUBLIC HEARING (John and Dannetta Mahler)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to increase the maximum structural projection
permitted into required front yards from 4 feet as required by Section 24-83(b) to 9 feet to allow for
the addition of a carport to the front of the existing house at Lot 1 of Club Manor (aka 190 Club
Drive).
B. ZVAR18‐0004 PUBLIC HEARING (DeJean and Laurie Melancon)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to increase the maximum structural
projection permitted into required front yards from 4 feet as required by Section 24‐83(b) to 12.5
feet; to increase the maximum structural projection permitted into required side yards from 2 feet
as required by Section 24‐83(b) to 2.8 feet; and to increase the maximum height allowed for this lot
from 17.5 feet as required by Section 24‐82(c) to 23.7 feet in order to build a new deck and roof at
the east 75 feet of Lot 5, Daniel and Hackett Replat of Block 16 (aka 664 Beach Avenue).
C. ZVAR18‐0003 PUBLIC HEARING (Lorraine Schmidt)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to increase the allowable fence height in side
and rear yards from 4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina Unit 10‐B PUD to 6
feet at Selva Marina Unit 10‐B north half Lot 2 and Lot 3 (aka 1831 Selva Marian Drive).
5. Reports.
A. Capital Improvement Plan
B. Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ordinance Discussion
C. Automotive Service Station Moratorium Ordinance Discussion
6. Adjournment.
All information related to the item(s)included in this agenda is available for review online at www.coab.us and at the City of Atlantic
Beach Community Development Department, located at 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233. Interested parties may atte n d
the meeting and make comments regarding agenda items, or comments may be mailed to the address above. Any
person wishing to speak to the Community Development Board on any matter at this meeting should submit a Comment Card located at the
entrance to Commission Chambers prior to the start of the meeting. Please note that all meetings are live streamed and videotaped. The video is
available at www.coab.us.
If any person decides to appeal any decision made by the Community Development Board with respect to any matter considered at any
meeting may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, including the testimony and evidence upon which any appeal
is to be based.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 286.26 of the Florida Statutes, persons with disabilities needing
special accommodations to participate in this meeting should contact the City not less than three (3) days prior to the date of this meeting
at the address or phone number above.
4. NEW BUSINESS
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
February 20, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mr. Hansen requested a change to the minutes on page 5 to add his ex parte
communication and correct the spelling of a name from Mr. Moore to Mr. Moyer.
Mr. Hansen motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Elmore seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
A. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair
Chair Paul asked the Board if they wanted to wait for the other members of the
board to be present. The Board agreed to defer this to the next meeting.
A. ZVAR17‐0016 PUBLIC HEARING (Joseph J. Conselice)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, for relief from the
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Chair Paul, Mr. Major, Mr. Hansen,
Mr. Tingen and Mr. Elmore were all present. Ms. Lanier, Ms. Simmons and Mr.
Mandelbaum were absent from the meeting. Also present were Director Shane
Corbin, Planner Derek Reeves, Planner Brian Broedell, Board Secretary Valerie
Jones and the City Attorney, Brenna Durden representing the firm Lewis, Longman
and Walker.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of the January 16, 2018 Regular Meeting of the Community
Development Board.
3. OLD BUSINESS
Section 24‐171(f) prohibition of chain link fences within 100 feet of the
commercial corridor to allow an existing chain link fence to remain on a
newly developed parcel at Lots 1 and 2, except the north 10 feet, as shown
on Donners Re‐plat (aka 1631 Mayport Road).
Staff Report
Planner Reeves said that this is a request for a variance related to existing chain
link fence on the property. He referred to a use‐by‐exception application from
2014 by American Well Irrigation who is the owner of this property. It is a corner
lot with recent construction of a 2‐story building with a garage on the lower level
for residential and commercial parking and living area on the second level. The
property is zoned Commercial General. The construction is complete and the CO
has been on hold for this variance.
Page 1 of 10
The variance request is to maintain the existing 6 foot chain link fence after the
construction and redevelopment of this property since chain link fence is
prohibited within the commercial corridors. The fence was discussed before by
the Board in February 2014 related to a use‐by‐exception at which time the Board
did recommend approval to the City Commission with a condition that the existing
chain link fence be screened with existing hedges, enhanced and irrigated. The
Commission approved it in May of 2014 with the condition. Planner Reeves
showed a picture of the hedge in 2014 and a picture of it now, pointing out the
drastic change of fullness and height with the chain link fence behind it.
The property was sub
corridor standards and requires the fencing be made conforming.
Mr. Major asked if the height and setback requirements were met. Planner
Reeves said they were. Mr. Major wanted to know if the City has deemed wooden
fence more aesthetically pleasing than chain link fence. Planner Reeves said that
there wasn't necessarily a preference toward wood but there is against chain link
as opposed to vinyl or another material. Mr. Major also wanted to know if the City
believes hedges are more aesthetically please than all other options. Planner
Reeves said that in certain parts of the code hedges are required landscaping and
these hedges would count toward that requirement.
Mr. Tingen wanted to know if the applicant was aware of this when the land was
divided. Planner Reeves said they were and that is why they presented the site
plan with the wooden fence which satisfied the requirements.
‐divided last summer to create a new parcel where this new
building has been built. This was done because if you increase your property value
through new construction, additions or redevelopment by more than 25% of
existing improvements then you have to bring the whole property up to code. By
sub‐dividing it this was the only property impacted by those requirements. During
the permit process the plans reflected the chain link fence being replaced with
wood. The CO has been held up because that is part of the approved plan set has
not been met. The redevelopment of the property triggers the commercial
Applicant Comment
Chester Kimes of 5446 Heckscher Drive in Jacksonville introduced himself as the
contractor. He said that he didn't think that a 6 foot privacy fence along Mayport
wouldn't be aesthetically better than what is there now. Mr. Kimes explained that
the applicant has put in a lot of shrubs and irrigation at a cost of several thousand
dollars. He asked that the fence be left as it is.
Joe Conselice of 209 Oak Drive South in Fleming Island introduced himself as the
applicant. Mr. Hansen wanted to know why he submitted plans that included a
wooden fence but didn't install a wooden fence. Mr. Conselice said he thought it
would look worse because the wood will deteriorate. He pointed to the picture
to show that you can't really see the chain link fence due to the shrubs. He
Page 2 of 10
referred to the previous variance and the financial investment that he has in the
shrubs.
Mr. Elmore asked him if he still felt the need for a fence at all. Mr. Conselice said
he did for security. Mr. Elmore said he looks at this as a self‐imposed hardship
since Mr. Conselice knew that he needed to have a wood fence but didn't install
it. He did commend Mr. Conselice on the condition of the hedge but felt that code
must still be adhered to.
Public Comment
Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment.
Mr. Hansen wondered if the code should be looked at. Mr. Major said that since
the fence is already there and the hedges are beautiful that he doesn't like to tear
things down that are effective. Mr. Elmore had concerns that the Board's history
of giving too many use‐by‐exceptions has had past criticism. He believes that we
need to stick to the LDR or consider a rewrite. Mr. Tingen said that he had spoken
to the owner and understands that the hedges look good but felt that the
applicant knew what he was supposed to do and chose not to do it which leaves
him at fault. Chair Paul asked staff if they can use other fencing materials. Planner
Reeves confirmed that the applicant can do anything except chain link and barb
wire. The Board agreed that they need to stick to the code.
Mr. Elmore motioned to deny ZVAR17‐0016 finding the chain link fence has a
With none, it was closed.
Board Discussion
Planner Reeves clarified that the shrubs will remain since they are still required as
part of the buffer. He explained the use‐by‐exception in 2014 was because the
fence came up as non‐conforming and should it be required to be replaced at that
time. It was decided that the condition of required hedging would allow them to
keep the fence at that time.
Motion
negative impact to the aesthetic environment of the community as it is explained
in the code. Mr. Hansen seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
B. ZVAR18‐0001 PUBLIC HEARING (Kelly and Mike Diaz)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24‐64, to decrease the
required side yard from 10 feet as required by Section 24‐17 to 1.5 feet in
order to increase the height of an existing nonconforming structure at the
west 115 feet of Lot 6, Block 22 and the west 115 feet pf the north one‐half
Lot 5, Block 22, Atlantic Beach (aka 130 5th Street).
Staff Report
Planner Broedell explained that this is a request for a variance to enlarge an
existing non‐conforming structure. The existing house was built in 1932. Because
it is a corner lot the front of the lot is the west side that fronts Ocean Boulevard.
The proposed plan would increase the height of the house from 24 feet to 29 feet
Page 3 of 10
There were no further public comments.
due to the applicants desire to raise the existing foundation, increase ceiling
height and create adequate space for duct work. Planner Broedell explained that
the expansion or enlargement of a non‐conforming structure is prohibited unless
that expansion complies with the code or a variance is obtained. All of the setbacks
are met except for the north property line.
Applicant Comment
Mike and Kelly Diaz of 1490 Selva Marina Drive introduced themselves as the
applicants. Ms. Diaz explained that they wanted to make the house livable without
tearing it down or changing the foot print. The Diaz's have meet with 3 contractors
much as possible.
Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment.
John Bishop of 544 Ocean Boulevard introduced himself as a neighbor who has
lived in the neighborhood since the 1950's. He said that the applicants are trying
to preserve the integrity of the old Atlantic Beach neighborhood and he believes
the Board should commend this applicant and approve the variance.
Planner Reeves had several emails that he shared with the Board that spoke in
favor of this variance. These emails will also apply to the next variance on the
agenda. Chair Paul had also received an email in favor of this variance.
and a house mover and was told that the house could be raised up under the
second floor and a new slab poured to raise it up a foot or two from its existing 6
and a half foot ceilings. There would also be an increase in height to accommodate
insulation and duct work between floors. Mr. Elmore said he wasn't sure that 5
feet is enough and the applicant agreed that 6 feet might be better which would
bring the overall height to 30 feet. Mr. Tingen said that he was in the house and
agreed that the ceilings were very close to his head. The applicant is aware that it
will cost more to renovate than to rebuild but they are willing to preserve it as
Public Comment
Board Discussion
Mr. Hansen said that he had ex‐parte communication with Mike Diaz in December
on how to get a variance. He said he also received an email from the applicant
regarding the variance. Mr. Tingen also had ex‐parte communication with Kelly
Diaz. Mr. Elmore said he knew the applicants and applauds what they are doing to
preserve the history and integrity of this house. He reiterated the need for the 6
feet as to avoid any future problems. Mr. Hansen said it was an easy vote due to
keeping the footprint and saving the architecture. Chair Paul was grateful to see
an old house being saved knowing that the applicant could easily have torn it
down with less time and effort.
Page 4 of 10
Applicant Comment
from the house and still have a two car garage.
Motion
Mr. Hansen motioned to approve ZVAR18‐0001 finding the onerous effect of
regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property. Chair
Paul asked if the Board wanted to increase the height to 30 feet. Ms. Durden
suggested that they include the height. Mr. Hansen amended the motion to
condition that the height be below 35 feet. Mr. Elmore seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously.
C. ZVAR18‐0002 PUBLIC HEARING (Kelly and Mike Diaz)
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24
for detached garages. The existing garage is 3.8 feet from the rear lot line. The
proposed plan is to demolish the existing one‐story garage and build a two‐story
detached garage with guest quarters on the second floor. The new garage would
be 9 feet from the rear lot line. Originally it was 7 feet but the applicants reworked
the plan and reduced it to 9 feet. The proposed garage would be 598.5 square feet
in lot area, 25 feet in height and 5 feet from existing house. The need for a variance
comes from the code requiring detached garages under 600 square feet of lot area
and 25 feet or less in height to be a minimum of 10 feet from rear lot line. Consider
that they are proposing a 9 foot setback. The height would go from 12 feet to 25
feet and the lot area from 375 square feet to just under 600 square feet.
Ms. Diaz introduced herself as the owner of the property and explained that the
garage is in major disrepair. They reworked the plan to keep the garage 5 feet
‐64, to decrease the
required rear yard for detached garages from 10 feet as required by Section
24‐151(b)(1)(e) to 7 feet to allow for the construction of a two story
detached garage with guest quarters at the west 115 feet of Lot 6, Block 22
and the west 115 feet pf the north one‐half Lot 5, Block 22, Atlantic Beach
(aka 130 5th Street).
Staff Report
Planner Broedell explained that this variance is for the same address as the
previous variance and the applicants are seeking relief from the rear yard setback
Public Comment
Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. With none, it was closed.
Board Discussion
Mr. Hansen said that he didn't have a problem with this variance since the setback
would go from 3.8 feet to 9 feet resulting in an improvement. Mr. Elmore agreed.
Planner Reeves explained that the request is for a 7 foot setback and the applicant
has since offered to do a 9 foot setback so the Board would need to clarify this in
their motion. Mr. Hansen said he could go with either one. Mr. Elmore didn't have
a problem with the 7 feet since it is still a gain.
Page 5 of 10
Mr. Major had a hard time with this variance due to the previous applicant who
had to comply with fencing. Mr. Major thought they were working with a blank
slate, but Chair Paul explained that there is an existing garage there and they are
just seeking to build a different garage which will be even closer to compliance.
She pointed out that the previous applicant and an empty lot to work with. Mr.
Hansen said he could agree with Mr. Major if there wasn't already a garage there
that is in violation of current code. Mr. Major said the applicant could build a
single story and have the 5 foot setback.
construction of improvements upon the property. Mr. Hansen seconded the
motion. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Tingen asked if the Board was
changing it from 7 feet to 9 feet and Chair Paul said that they were granting the
original variance request for 7 feet.
D. Ordinance 90‐18‐231 PUBLIC HEARING
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, AMENDING CHAPTER
24, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DIVISION 2,
SECTION 24‐51, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS; DELETING CURRENT
SECTION 24‐51 IN ITS ENTIRETY; ADOPTING NEW SECTION 24‐51,
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REQUIRED NOTICES, ESTABLISHING NEW
NOTICE, ADVERTISEMENT AND SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING
FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Mr. Tingen added that the garage was also built in 1932 and was about to fall
apart. He asked whether there is a problem with trying to get more space that is
conducive to cars of today. Chair Paul felt the number of vehicles has become an
issue more than the size. Mr. Major said that if it was a single‐story two car garage
then it would fit the code.
Motion
Mr. Elmore motioned to approve ZVAR18‐0002 finding the onerous effect of
regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
Staff Report
Planner Reeves explained that this is a continuation of the conversation the Board
had at the last meeting for potential changes to notice requirements. The Board
asked Staff to come back with revised language that would incorporate Staff's
recommendations and allow for more discussion.
Planner Reeves said that the previous proposal mirrored what the State had for
newspaper notification which was 7 days and he has changed all of those to 10
days to keep it consistent with current code.
Staff did incorporate the additional changes that Staff had recommended which is
the mail and signs for small scale comp plan ordinances. Those are site specific
requests for change to future land use designation and a small text plan to go with
Page 6 of 10
hours of staff time for mailers.
Planner Reeves discussed some of the things that could be added to what has been
proposed. In the last meeting the Board discussed having an official notification
section on the City website notification. The City Manager is
discouraging email notification at this time due to the fact that we only have about
1,700 emails at this time and there are over 5,700 property owners which leaves
us a long way from being able to properly notify all of them. These emails are also
not currently attached to an address. He asked Ms. Durden if the email addresses
would be public record.
it. Because those are site specific it is easy to do mail notices and post signs as
you would for rezoning. That is above and beyond what the State requires. The
same thing was done for rezoning that is applicant based.
Planner Reeves pointed out that the City exceeds State requirements in almost
every category. Mr. Elmore wanted to know why there wouldn't be any mail or
sign notifications on Zoning Map changes for over 10 acres. Planner Reeves said
that the over 10 acres is only for city initiated changes. He said that the only time
you might see a Zoning Map change over 10 acres would be when the City is
changing the terminology for the district.
Planner Reeves then showed comparisons of noticing requirements for other
jurisdictions. He pointed out how the City exceeds every other jurisdiction in
almost every category.
He went into the cost analysis of noticing giving examples of newspaper, mailing
and signage costs. He compared a smaller notice to a city wide notice and included
the cost of staff time. A city wide notice with signs would take 16 weeks for one
person to put all of the signs up and would total approximately $28,000 with 728
An example would be if RS‐1 was
changed to another name. Chair Paul agreed with Mr. Elmore that an extra layer
of oversite would be good. Mr. Elmore said he would like to see the Zoning Map
over 10 acres match the under 10 acres for mailing notices 30 days in advance.
and email
She acknowledged that they would be. Mr. Elmore
wanted to know why the City would be obligated to give the emails to commercial
entities. Ms. Durden said that the law prohibits any kind of vetting and it would
subject the City to law suits. The City is limited as to what they can ask when public
records are requested. She said that it would be something to aspire to but not
necessarily make mandatory for noticing.
Planner Reeves went on to talk about additional signage and how the current
code, in certain situations, would require a sign on every single parcel. He would
like to move away from that with the new ordinance and reach some middle
ground. He said the City could do message boards (marquee style). Another
option was street corners or major intersections but there has been a fair amount
of objection to this due to the potential safety hazard and distraction to drivers.
Page 7 of 10
discussion.
He said that Staff is looking for a recommendation from the Board to the City
Commission to either approve it as written, ask Staff to make certain changes or
the Board can deny it. Mr. Major wanted to know how the residents of Atlantic
Beach would be notified of this change. Ms. Durden explained that there will be
two readings at the City Commission level and they will be advertised. She said
that a Section 5 will be added to the existing ordinance to waive the current
provisions of 24‐51 in order to adopt this.
Public Comment
Chair Paul opened the floor to public comment. Susanne Barker of 1938 Beachside
wide signage or notification in all her years of living here. Ms. Barker would like to
see a report of past expenses for noticing and does not believe it will be anywhere
near what Staff is presenting. She likes the idea of social media and would like to
see an app created for the City.
Ms. Barker read a letter from Maria Mark of 1148 Linkside Drive. Ms. Mark is
concerned that Staff is trying to streamline the process due to Staff time and
expense. She compared it to streamlining the tree removal process where trees
were illegally removed and no mitigation fees were paid. Ms. Mark said that public
opinion is being squashed and zoning approvals are being pushed through without
public input. She asked that the Board protect the public's right to the government
process.
With no further public comments, Chair Paul brought it back to the Board for
Court expressed her concern about these changes. She explained that there were
a lot of signs put out for the Mayport Business District Overlay but in her 22 years
of living in Atlantic Beach she has never seen this done and believes Staff is using
this unusual situation to imply this is going to cost the City a lot of time and money.
She is concerned that there will only be one City Commission meeting instead of
two in many of the noticing situations. Ms. Barker had looked into Fernandina
Beach and said they find newspaper noticing onerous and they use signs and post
cards instead of a letter to keep the cost down. She said she has never seen city
Board Discussion
Mr. Major said that he will not vote for recommendation to change the ordinance
unless the app is created. He liked the idea of the website and the app. Mr. Elmore
said that people call it streamlining as if government is trying to get out of their
job but he looks at it as an attempt to be more efficient and not necessarily trying
to limit the public to information. He spoke of how Commission meetings are done
and how a second reading rarely has any public comment. Mr. Elmore said that if
people really want to know what's going on in their community that there are
plenty of ways to do that.
Chair Paul said she also has sat through a lot of second readings. Her experience
was that a lot of questions are asked and answered on the first reading but not on
Page 8 of 10
the second. She agreed with Mr. Elmore that if the public really wants to know
what's going on they would know that the proposed noticing requirements exceed
the State requirements and a variety of the cities around Atlantic Beach. She
would like to see the notices put on the City website and if an app can be
developed that would be great but it's not a deal breaker for her.
Ms. Durden clarified that any ordinance will still require two readings before the
governing body. So in addition to the public hearing before this Board you will
have a minimum of two reading and one public hearing before the City
Commission. She said that even without a public hearing there is always an
Mr. Elmore motioned to adopt Ordinance 90‐18‐231 with the addition of the 30
day notice given by mail for zoning map changes greater than 10 acres and the
inclusion of a waiver from Section 24‐51. Mr. Tingen seconded the motion. Mr.
Major asked if the Board was adding in the recommendation to add the website,
emails and new technology. Mr. Elmore said yes, he would like to include the
development of the website, gathering of emails and the app. Mr. Hansen said he
wasn't sure if that should be added but just general direction. Mr. Major said it
should be a tool that is used just like mail and signs. Chair Paul said she would feel
more confident if all of the technology was developed and functioning but they
would be hinging this on something that hasn't come to fruition yet. Mr. Elmore
confirmed that his original motion stands. The motion passed unanimously.
opportunity for the public to comment on the ordinance whether it's on the first
reading or second reading. Certain scenarios require this Board to have a public
hearing and the City Commission to have two public hearings. It really depends on
the specific request and who is making the request. Planner Reeves added that
Staff is exceeding the State by requiring public hearings for all of these noticing
situations in front of this Board as well. He also said that if the Board wanted to
add a second hearing that could be done.
Motion
5. REPORTS
Planner Reeves introduced Shane Corbin as the new Community Development
Director. Director Corbin said that he is a transplant from Savannah, Georgia
where was the Zoning Administrator for the couple of years. He mentioned that
Savannah just went through a similar situation where they changed their approach
to noticing. Director Corbin said he was previously from Louisville, Kentucky for
26 years where he worked in several different positions. He said he is happy to be
in Atlantic Beach and looks forward to working with the Board.
Planner Reeves gave the Board an update on the Medical Marijuana Ordinance.
He said that Staff had presented the map that the Board had recommended along
with some code language at a Town Hall meeting in January. Staff will take the
input from the meeting and continue working on the ordinance. The deadline is
May 28th so Staff will bring it back to the Board in the next couple months.
Page 9 of 10
He also gave an update on the Automotive Service Station moratorium. The
moratorium went to the Town Hall meeting in January. They are looking at a ban
of gas stations in the future. The deadline is June 22nd and Staff will bring
something back to the Board in the next couple months.
Ms. Durden added that Staff has received direction on the ban of the gas stations
in the future. Florida law does authorize and allow for complete bans but there
does need to be reasonable and rational basis for the ban and those have to be
stated. That will take a little bit of time to develop. She said that those gas stations
that are in existence will need provisions to allow for remodeling, restoration and
updating so the City is not in a position of putting them out of business. She said
that this takes a little more time and they need to make sure that property rights
are being paid attention to. Ms. Durden encouraged the Board to let her or Staff
know if they have any recommendations, concerns or questions.
Mr. Elmore asked if Staff did a courtesy review of the RaceTrak Gas Station that is
going in on the corner of Dutton Island and Mayport Road. Planner Reeves said
he did not but concerns had come up at the Town Hall and with Commission. A
few residents expressed concerns. Ms. Durden said the City Manager and
Commission said they would like to see the two cities work together to develop
an overlay zone that would include the entire corridor so that we won't run into
the issues of whether it's in the City of Atlantic Beach or Jacksonville.
Planner Reeves spoke about the Design Charrette for Mayport Road between
Plaza and Levy. It is scheduled for March 7th at 6:00 p.m. in the chambers for the
public to give input and the Board is invited as well.
Ms. Durden said that the appeal regarding 1605 Selva Marina Drive for a variance
to allow 6 foot fence in front yard instead of a 4 foot fence will be held in chambers
on Monday, February 26th at 4:30 p.m.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Hansen motioned to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Mr. Tingen seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
_______________________________________
Brea Paul, Chair
_______________________________________
Attest
Page 10 of 10
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.A
CASE NO. ZVAR18-0005
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum
structural projection permitted into required front yards from 4 feet as required
by Section 24-83(b) to 9 feet to allow for the addition of a carport to the front
of the existing house at Lot 1 of Club Manor (aka 190 Club Drive).
LOCATION 190 Club Drive
APPLICANT John and Danetta Mahler
DATE March 12, 2018
STAFF Brian Broedell, Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicants are John and Danetta Mahler, the owners of 190 Club Drive. The property is located on
the southeast corner of Club Drive and Ocean Boulevard within the Residential Single Family (RS-2)
zoning district. Platted in 1954, the lot has a 25 foot Building Restriction Line (BRL) across the front
(northern portion) of the lot. In accordance with
Section 24-17, Building Restriction Lines, which
may require a greater building setback than the
applicable zoning district, shall be enforceable
by the city. So even though the 25 foot BRL is a
greater restriction than the 20 foot setback
required within the RS-2 zoning district, it is
enforced by the City.
The applicants are proposing to add a carport to
the front of the existing house. The original
garage built in 1958 was converted to indoor
living space in 2016. As a result, the house does
not have any covered parking. The proposed
carport would be located 16 feet from the front
lot line, 9 feet beyond the required 25 foot BRL
and into the required front yard. Section 24-83(b)
allows a maximum structural projection of 4 feet
into the required front yard for features such as
eaves and open carports. As such, the applicants
are requesting to increase this maximum
structural projection allowance from 4 feet to 9
feet in order to construct the proposed carport.
25’ BRL
16’
ANALYSIS
Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis,
and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a
variance and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a]
variance shall mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to
the extent as expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain
provision(s) or a relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted
shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such relief may
be subject to conditions as set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.”
Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby
properties.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area.
The applicant indicated that they are requesting a 20 foot setback as required by the applicable
zoning district in lieu of the 25 foot BRL.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable
use of the property.
Page 2 of 3
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR18-0005, request for a
variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum structural projection permitted into
required front yards from 4 feet as required by Section 24-83(b) to 9 feet to allow for the addition of a
carport to the front of the existing house at Lot 1 of Club Manor (aka 190 Club Drive), upon finding this
request is consistent with the definition of a variance, and in accordance with the provisions of Section
24-64, specifically the grounds for approval delineated in Section 24-64(d) and as described below.
A variance may be granted, at the discretion of the Community Development Board, for the
following reasons:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby
properties.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to
other properties in the area.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or
after construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the
reasonable use of the property.
Or,
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to deny ZVAR18-0005, request for a
variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum structural projection permitted into
required front yards from 4 feet as required by Section 24-83(b) to 9 feet to allow for the addition of a
carport to the front of the existing house at Lot 1 of Club Manor (aka 190 Club Drive), upon finding this
request is not consistent with the definition of a variance, or it is consistent with one or more of the grounds
for denial of a variance, as delineated in Section 24-64(c), described below.
No variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines
that the granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one (1) or
more of the following:
(1) Light and air to adjacent properties.
(2) Congestion of streets.
(3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public
safety.
(4) Established property values.
(5) The aesthetic environment of the community.
(6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas,
wildlife habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources.
(7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from
financial circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner.
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.B
CASE NO. ZVAR18-0004
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum
structural projection permitted into required front yards from 4 feet as required
by Section 24-83(b) to 12.5 feet; to increase the maximum structural projection
permitted into required side yards from 2 feet as required by Section 24-83(b)
to 2.8 feet; and to increase the maximum height allowed for this lot from 17.5
feet as required by Section 24-82(c) to 23.7 feet in order to build a new deck
and roof at the east 75 feet of Lot 5, Daniel and Hackett Replat of Block 16 (aka
664 Beach Avenue).
LOCATION 664 Beach Avenue
APPLICANT Dejean and Laurie Melancon
DATE March 12, 2018
STAFF Brian Broedell, Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicants are Dejean and Laurie Melancon, the owners
of 664 Beach Avenue. The lot is 50 feet wide by 75 feet deep
and is zoned Residential General (RG). The existing house
was built in 1940 and currently has a second story,
uncovered deck on the northern side of the house.
The applicants are proposing to construct a roof over the
second story deck. In the RG zoning district, the required front yard setback is 20 feet and the required
side yard setbacks are a combined 15 feet, with a minimum of 5 feet on either side. With an existing 10.1
foot setback on the south side, the minimum required setback on the north side (where the roof is proposed)
is 5 feet. The proposed roof would be located 7.5 feet from the front lot line and 2.2 feet from the northern
side lot line. Section 24-83(b) of the City Code allows roofs to project up to 4 feet into required front yard
setbacks and up to 2 feet into required side yard setbacks. As such, the proposed roof would be permitted
16 feet from the front lot line and 3 feet from the northern lot line. The applicants are requesting to increase
this allowable projection from 4 feet to 12.5 feet into the required front yard and from 2 feet to 2.8 feet
into the required side yard in order to construct the proposed roof.
In addition to exceeding the maximum structural projections allowed into front and side yards, the
proposed roof would exceed the maximum height allowed for this lot. Section 24-82(c) of the City Code
limits the allowable height for non-conforming lots to a percentage of the lot area when compared to the
minimum lot size of the applicable zoning district and then applying this percentage to the maximum
height allowed (35 feet). This lot is 75 feet by 50 feet, 50% of the minimum required lot size for the RG
zoning district, resulting in a maximum allowable height of 17.5 feet (50% of 35) for this lot. The height
of the proposed roof, at its highest point, would be 23.7 feet from grade, 6.2 feet higher than the maximum
allowed.
ANALYSIS
Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis,
and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a
variance and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a]
variance shall mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to
the extent as expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain
provision(s) or a relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted
shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such relief may
be subject to conditions as set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.”
Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby
properties.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area.
The applicant stated that their immediate neighbors to the north, south, and west all encroach on
current setbacks.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable
use of the property.
The applicant stated that the existing porch without the roof is 8’-8” and City code allows a
maximum of 8’-2”.
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR18-0004, request for a
variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum structural projection permitted into
required front yards from 4 feet as required by Section 24-83(b) to 12.5 feet; to increase the maximum
structural projection permitted into required side yards from 2 feet as required by Section 24-83(b) to 2.8
feet; and to increase the maximum height allowed for this lot from 17.5 feet as required by Section 24-
82(c) to 23.7 feet in order to build a new deck and roof at the east 75 feet of Lot 5, Daniel and Hackett
Replat of Block 16 (aka 664 Beach Avenue), upon finding this request is consistent with the definition of
a variance, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 24-64, specifically the grounds for approval
delineated in Section 24-64(d) and as described below.
Page 2 of 3
A variance may be granted, at the discretion of the Community Development Board, for the
following reasons:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby
properties.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to
other properties in the area.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or
after construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the
reasonable use of the property.
Or,
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to deny ZVAR18-0004, request for a
variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the maximum structural projection permitted into
required front yards from 4 feet as required by Section 24-83(b) to 12.5 feet; to increase the maximum
structural projection permitted into required side yards from 2 feet as required by Section 24-83(b) to 2.8
feet; and to increase the maximum height allowed for this lot from 17.5 feet as required by Section 24-
82(c) to 23.7 feet in order to build a new deck and roof at the east 75 feet of Lot 5, Daniel and Hackett
Replat of Block 16 (aka 664 Beach Avenue), upon finding this request is not consistent with the definition
of a variance, or it is consistent with one or more of the grounds for denial of a variance, as delineated in
Section 24-64(c), described below.
No variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines
that the granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one (1) or
more of the following:
(1) Light and air to adjacent properties.
(2) Congestion of streets.
(3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public
safety.
(4) Established property values.
(5) The aesthetic environment of the community.
(6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas,
wildlife habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources.
(7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from
financial circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner.
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 4.C
CASE NO. ZVAR18-0003
Request for a variance as permitted by Section 24-64, to increase the allowable
fence height from 4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina
Unit 10-B PUD to 6 feet at Selva Marina Unit 10-B north half Lot 2 and Lot 3
(aka 1831 Selva Marina Drive).
LOCATION 1831 Selva Marina Drive
APPLICANT Lorraine Schmidt
DATE March 5, 2018
STAFF Derek W. Reeves, Planner
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant is Lorraine Schmidt, the owner of 1831 Selva Marina Drive. The property is zoned PUD in
the Selva Marina neighborhood and has an existing single family home. The owners would like to replace
an existing six foot fence with a new six foot. The site plan in the application shows the existing fence
(the black lines with two little dashes) and the new fence (yellow highlight). A variance is required for the
new fence because it does not meet the requirements of the PUD.
This property is part of the Selva Marina Unit 10-B PUD and plat. The plat generally includes the first
few lots north of Saturiba Drive on North Sherry Drive and Selva Marina Drive. The PUD was approved
in 1978 by the Commission. A copy of the City Commission meeting minutes for the approval are
attached. The Covenants and Restrictions for the PUD, which are usually not enforced by a municipality,
were provided to the City as the PUD’s governing text. The Covenants do define the City’s enforcement
powers in the PUD. A copy is attached to the end of this report.
Section III(D)(4) of the Covenants states in part, “Fences or walls may be located outside of the dwelling
zone provided: (a) The shall not exceed four *4) feet in height.” The dwelling zone is defined by setbacks
of 20 feet in the front and rear and 10 feet in each side yard.
When reading the Covenants, there are several references to a Special Advisory Planning Board that is
required to grant approvals in the PUD. However, like a similar recent variance request in Selva Marina
Unit 12-C, it appears that this board no longer exists. The Covenants then defer responsibilities to the City.
Just as if a proposed project did not meet the City’s zoning code, it would have to get a variance, when a
proposed project doesn’t meet the requirements of the PUD, it must get a variance.
Historically, it appears that the City has not always recognized and enforced these Covenants, which has
resulted in a hodgepodge of development in this PUD, and others with similar circumstances. This means
that the City’s normal zoning code was applied. If the City’s normal zoning code was applied to this fence,
it would be approved administratively as six foot fences are allowed in side and rear yards. Ultimately,
staff would like to explore corrective measures for these PUDs that would address the nonexistent boards
and to make zoning requirements consistent.
ANALYSIS
Section 24-64(b)(1) provides that “applications for a variance shall be considered on a case-by-case basis,
and shall be approved only upon findings of fact that the application is consistent with the definition of a
variance and consistent with the provisions of this section.” According to Section 24-17, Definitions, “[a]
variance shall mean relief granted from certain terms of this chapter. The relief granted shall be only to
the extent as expressly allowed by this chapter and may be either an allowable exemption from certain
provision(s) or a relaxation of the strict, literal interpretation of certain provision(s). Any relief granted
shall be in accordance with the provisions as set forth in Section 24-64 of this chapter, and such relief may
be subject to conditions as set forth by the City of Atlantic Beach.”
Section 24-64(d) provides six distinct grounds for the approval of a variance:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
The applicant stated in their application that a neighbor has a raised deck and a six foot fence would
offer better privacy.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby
properties.
The applicant stated in their application that they have a swimming pool and a six foot fence would
provide added safety.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other
properties in the area.
The applicant stated in their application that many neighboring properties have six foot fences
including the property behind them that recently built a six foot fence (with a variance).
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after
construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable
use of the property.
Page 2 of 3
REQUIRED ACTION
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to approve ZVAR18-0003, request to
increase the allowable fence height from 4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina Unit
10-B PUD to 6 feet at Selva Marina Unit 10-B north half Lot 2 and Lot 3 (aka 1831 Selva Marina Drive),
upon finding this request is consistent with the definition of a variance, and in accordance with the
provisions of Section 24-64, specifically the grounds for approval delineated in Section 24-64(d) and as
described below.
A variance may be granted, at the discretion of the Community Development Board, for the
following reasons:
(1) Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property.
(2) Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby
properties.
(3) Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to
other properties in the area.
(4) Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or
after construction of improvements upon the property.
(5) Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration.
(6) Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the
reasonable use of the property.
Or,
The Community Development Board may consider a motion to deny ZVAR18-0003, request to increase
the allowable fence height from 4 feet as required by Section III(D)(4) of the Selva Marina Unit 10-B
PUD to 6 feet at Selva Marina Unit 10-B north half Lot 2 and Lot 3 (aka 1831 Selva Marina Drive), or it
is not consistent with one or more of the grounds for denial of a variance, as delineated in Section 24-
64(c), described below.
No variance shall be granted if the Community Development Board, in its discretion, determines
that the granting of the requested variance shall have a materially adverse impact upon one (1) or
more of the following:
(1) Light and air to adjacent properties.
(2) Congestion of streets.
(3) Public safety, including traffic safety, risk of fire, flood, crime or other threats to public
safety.
(4) Established property values.
(5) The aesthetic environment of the community.
(6) The natural environment of the community, including environmentally sensitive areas,
wildlife habitat, protected trees, or other significant environmental resources.
(7) The general health, welfare or beauty of the community.
Variances shall not be granted solely for personal comfort or convenience, for relief from financial
circumstances or for relief from situation created by the property owner.
Page 3 of 3